ETHICS PART 7: THE VIRTUE OF HONESTY
If integrity means realizing you can't fake your own consciousness, honesty means realizing you can't fake reality. Honesty is a corollary of the virtue of rationality. If rationality is the commitment to discover reality and what is true in the world, then honesty is the commitment to reject what is untrue and refuse to pretend that fantasy is reality. If existence exists (going back to metaphysics), then we must accept and conform to reality, not rebel against it. In "popular culture" ethics, we are taught that we should be honest for the sake of others, because lying hurts our fellow man. This is true, but what is more important and often left out is what it does to the liar. When someone tries to use dishonesty as a means of achieving values in their life, they immediately put themselves in a conflict with reality (which we'll examine more in-depth later). Reality and existence become an enemy, something to be avoided at all costs to keep the lie alive. However, the lie never vanishes. It sits, patiently, waiting to explode in the person's face. The attempt to avoid or fake reality is the height of irrationality, and thus an evil and destructive force in one's life. We'll look at honesty in two parts. Intellectual honesty, which involves being honest with oneself; and honesty in action, which is honesty towards others.
INTELLECTUAL HONESTY
Previously in ethics, we've established that reason is our primary means of survival, whether we're living on a desert island or a modern city. Intellectual honesty means embracing reason. It means spending life constantly learning and integrating new things into one's mind, but at the same time being willing to examine one's own thoughts and beliefs to root out and eliminate any contradictions. Since contradictions can't exist (A is A), if you find one in your thoughts, or if new knowledge contradicts your previous thoughts, then it must be confronted. Ignoring or purposefully evading the contradiction is an attempt to deny reality and lie to your own mind. This may be very difficult in some situations, because of our emotions and biases, but still necessary.
Previously in ethics, we've established that reason is our primary means of survival, whether we're living on a desert island or a modern city. Intellectual honesty means embracing reason. It means spending life constantly learning and integrating new things into one's mind, but at the same time being willing to examine one's own thoughts and beliefs to root out and eliminate any contradictions. Since contradictions can't exist (A is A), if you find one in your thoughts, or if new knowledge contradicts your previous thoughts, then it must be confronted. Ignoring or purposefully evading the contradiction is an attempt to deny reality and lie to your own mind. This may be very difficult in some situations, because of our emotions and biases, but still necessary.
Let's say there was a physicist, like Sheldon Cooper, who has spent their life dedicated to proving string theory. They have published numerous research studies, books, and have become the world's foremost authority on the subject. If he or a colleague were to someday find solid evidence disproving the theory, then he would need to have the intellectual honesty to first admit to himself that his theory was wrong, and change the direction of his research. The opposite of this would be to cave to emotion, and attempt to ignore this contradiction. Perhaps he would convince himself the other researcher was a quack, or making up information. Or maybe he would try to rationalize the new knowledge and convince himself that it didn't really disprove string theory. However he tries to justify the contradiction, he can no longer call himself a scientist if he continues down that path, as he has abandoned the pursuit of objective knowledge.
A more common example dealing with intellectual honesty would be a college student who hates violence and prides themselves on supporting peace, but has decided to embrace Marxism after listening to a convincing professor. When, later on, a friend points out that in order for socialism to work, the state must initiate force to achieve its means, a contradiction emerges. Either the theory of Marxism is flawed, or the idea that initiating force being evil isn't true. If the student never faces this contradiction head-on, or rationalizes it by "the ends justify the means", they are evading thought and reality. Of course, the same evasion applies to many "conservatives", who can somehow say "socialism is evil!" in one breath, and "Obamacare takes away from Medicare!" in the next. These particular examples are a matter for the study of politics and not ethics, but the decision and principle to root out contradictions in your mind is a matter for ethics.
HONESTY IN ACTION
HONESTY IN ACTION
Honesty in action is the recognition that no value can ever be obtained by fraud. In traditional ethics, while lying is considered wrong, it's often acknowledged that it does result in achieving values like wealth, success, and even love. It's possible that a thief with a well-conceived and acted out plan can achieve wealth, not get caught, and retire living the good life sipping margaritas in a tropical beach somewhere for the rest of his life. Is this true? To find out we need an example.
In our example we'll imagine a brilliant, suave thief, like Sean Connery in Entrapment. Let's say he manages to pull off a great heist from a bank, and neither the bank nor the authorities can figure out who did it. He manages to get away scot-free, and now has a massive fortune that he can live the rest of his life in luxury with, right? Well, let's take it step by step. He wouldn't be able to put the money in most developed countries' banks or investment firms directly, as that would raise all sorts of flags. Most likely, he would need to find an offshore account where he could put the money without a high risk of detection, or find some investment shielded from government suspicion. At every step of the way he would need to lie to bankers or handlers of his money about what he does and where he got the money. Most likely, he would need the help of other criminals or people who are adept at hiding money.
Assuming he moves to a ritzy, tropical paradise, he would also need to lie to everyone there he associates with. Real estate agents, accountants, gardeners, maids, scuba instructors, acquaintances at parties and even the local government. Maybe he'll say he's a retired CEO. From what company? Where did he go to college? Why did he retire? Each lie necessitates a new one in an attempt to cover up reality. He realizes the lies will quickly spiral out of control, so in order to keep them straight, he starts to become a recluse, and does his best to not engage with others in any meaningful conversation. How about family or friends? Each of them must be lied to, or convinced to cover for his lies. The girl? Assuming she knows that he was a robber and still loves him (a little messed up), she must also be on the same page and have her lies coordinated with his. At the same time, he knows that the police and/or the bank he robbed might be looking for him. If a friend or acquaintance somehow suspected him of doing the crime, that presents a whole new level of concealment. Now lies aren't enough, and he needs to resort to other ways of convincing. Perhaps bribes, or even physical force like murder might be necessary, each carrying their own set of spiraling problems. It's hard to imagine all the ways this situation might snowball, but snowball it will if the thief chooses to continue to lie his way through life.
This is a brief example of why achieving something through fraud is never a value. Even if one is able to win the "battle" by getting away with a scheme, they will ultimately lose the "war" if they continue down that path. The world is littered with examples of this. When a person acts dishonestly, they have turned reality into their enemy, something that could blow up in their face at any time and destroy their life. Other people now become the focus of their lives, and not in a good way. The person must now concentrate their efforts to prey on others' ignorance, trust and gullibility. A liar might think he's powerful by being able to con others and turning them into his puppets, but in reality he is a pawn to other people. He becomes a dependent of the worst kind, a person dependent not on the strengths of others but on their weaknesses.
By being dishonest, every other virtue falls to the wayside. Is a liar independent? No, he becomes dependent on others, and their continued ignorance of reality. Does a liar have integrity? No, he is trying to evade principles, not uphold them. Is he productive? No, he creates nothing, any wealth he gains by fraud is at the expense of others. Is he just? No, he wants to gain the unearned. Can he be proud? Only in a perverted sense of the word, proud of his ability to manipulate and con others. How about values? Does he have self-confidence? Not if being self-confident means confidence in your ability to deal with and face reality. Is he happy? Like a drug addict, he might find enjoyment and the momentary euphoria of satisfying urges, but certainly not real or lasting happiness.
In our example we'll imagine a brilliant, suave thief, like Sean Connery in Entrapment. Let's say he manages to pull off a great heist from a bank, and neither the bank nor the authorities can figure out who did it. He manages to get away scot-free, and now has a massive fortune that he can live the rest of his life in luxury with, right? Well, let's take it step by step. He wouldn't be able to put the money in most developed countries' banks or investment firms directly, as that would raise all sorts of flags. Most likely, he would need to find an offshore account where he could put the money without a high risk of detection, or find some investment shielded from government suspicion. At every step of the way he would need to lie to bankers or handlers of his money about what he does and where he got the money. Most likely, he would need the help of other criminals or people who are adept at hiding money.
Assuming he moves to a ritzy, tropical paradise, he would also need to lie to everyone there he associates with. Real estate agents, accountants, gardeners, maids, scuba instructors, acquaintances at parties and even the local government. Maybe he'll say he's a retired CEO. From what company? Where did he go to college? Why did he retire? Each lie necessitates a new one in an attempt to cover up reality. He realizes the lies will quickly spiral out of control, so in order to keep them straight, he starts to become a recluse, and does his best to not engage with others in any meaningful conversation. How about family or friends? Each of them must be lied to, or convinced to cover for his lies. The girl? Assuming she knows that he was a robber and still loves him (a little messed up), she must also be on the same page and have her lies coordinated with his. At the same time, he knows that the police and/or the bank he robbed might be looking for him. If a friend or acquaintance somehow suspected him of doing the crime, that presents a whole new level of concealment. Now lies aren't enough, and he needs to resort to other ways of convincing. Perhaps bribes, or even physical force like murder might be necessary, each carrying their own set of spiraling problems. It's hard to imagine all the ways this situation might snowball, but snowball it will if the thief chooses to continue to lie his way through life.
This is a brief example of why achieving something through fraud is never a value. Even if one is able to win the "battle" by getting away with a scheme, they will ultimately lose the "war" if they continue down that path. The world is littered with examples of this. When a person acts dishonestly, they have turned reality into their enemy, something that could blow up in their face at any time and destroy their life. Other people now become the focus of their lives, and not in a good way. The person must now concentrate their efforts to prey on others' ignorance, trust and gullibility. A liar might think he's powerful by being able to con others and turning them into his puppets, but in reality he is a pawn to other people. He becomes a dependent of the worst kind, a person dependent not on the strengths of others but on their weaknesses.
By being dishonest, every other virtue falls to the wayside. Is a liar independent? No, he becomes dependent on others, and their continued ignorance of reality. Does a liar have integrity? No, he is trying to evade principles, not uphold them. Is he productive? No, he creates nothing, any wealth he gains by fraud is at the expense of others. Is he just? No, he wants to gain the unearned. Can he be proud? Only in a perverted sense of the word, proud of his ability to manipulate and con others. How about values? Does he have self-confidence? Not if being self-confident means confidence in your ability to deal with and face reality. Is he happy? Like a drug addict, he might find enjoyment and the momentary euphoria of satisfying urges, but certainly not real or lasting happiness.
The conventional, pragmatic morality, often gives us the idea of a "trade-off" way to look at ethics. For example, if a businessman succeeds in conning investors out of millions, that's supposedly a value to him, but he must weigh that against loss of reputation, friends, family, etc. The question becomes, is the value of the money worth the drawbacks? The mistake in this is that it takes values out of context. It presumes that a million dollars is a value in itself, no matter how it's obtained. That acing a test in school is a value in itself, no matter if done by one's own merits or by cheating. That catching a fish is the same as stealing someone else's catch. That a kiss is the same whether received because of one's virtues or because of one's vices. In reality, every value has a context, and it must be achieved by following rational principles in order to be considered a value. There is no "trade-off" to consider, if it means sacrificing a principle to get a value. No rational person would consider the trade-off of gaining a million dollars by cutting off their head. Similarly, no rational person should want to gain a value by being dishonest, as that action would lead to the destruction of their life. Therefore, it's actually irrational to look at something gained by fraud as a value, as it doesn't serve to further one's life (which is the definition of values). Honesty shouldn't be looked at as an altruistic virtue, as that implies one can improve their life by lying. It should be looked at as a virtue that is essential for the sake of the individual.
DO THE ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS?
The "trade-off" morality also gives rise to "the ends justify the means" mentality. After all, if we could achieve a social utopia where everyone had a job, health care, home, etc. then it's probably justified to steal some people's wealth, right? Maybe even imprison a few dissenters? It's for the greater good, right? Just like the bank robber thinking he'll achieve happiness by immoral means, the political "robber" is just as wrong. The good can't be achieved by immoral means no matter how much someone might wish it to be so. To do so would involve an endless spiral of lies to be concealed, which history shows generally manifests itself into secret police and gulags. If the good could be achieved by immoral means, the Salvation Army wouldn't stand outside ringing a bell asking for money, they would start ringing doorbells armed with guns.
DO THE ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS?
The "trade-off" morality also gives rise to "the ends justify the means" mentality. After all, if we could achieve a social utopia where everyone had a job, health care, home, etc. then it's probably justified to steal some people's wealth, right? Maybe even imprison a few dissenters? It's for the greater good, right? Just like the bank robber thinking he'll achieve happiness by immoral means, the political "robber" is just as wrong. The good can't be achieved by immoral means no matter how much someone might wish it to be so. To do so would involve an endless spiral of lies to be concealed, which history shows generally manifests itself into secret police and gulags. If the good could be achieved by immoral means, the Salvation Army wouldn't stand outside ringing a bell asking for money, they would start ringing doorbells armed with guns.
IS HONESTY ALWAYS THE BEST POLICY?
Yes, and no. Honesty, as with all virtues, is an absolute contextually. In the last post, we saw that integrity as a virtue means to practice what you preach. However, in reality you are not obligated to practice what you preach if you don't have the freedom to do so. If standing up for your principles will cause you to end up in a gulag or hauled off to the nearest concentration camp, it ceases to become a virtue. If you don't believe the income tax is just, it doesn't mean you must avoid paying it and get sent to jail. With honesty, it's absolutely wrong to lie...in certain situations! Anytime a lie is used in an attempt to gain a value it's wrong and immoral, as we've just seen how it's irrational to use honesty to gain values. However, unlike ethics under Immanuel Kant, honesty is not an absolute in all cases, nor is it always a virtue. If kidnappers show up to your house and ask where the kids are, it's NOT a virtue to be honest! When dealing with criminals, one's honesty might be used to further evil and destroy values. In these situations, it's the criminal who is committing evil and at war with reality, not the victim. If this is the case, one should lie, and do it proudly. Being a good liar would actually become a virtue if someone is trying to take something by force or by fraud from you. This means there are even certain jobs that would morally permit lying, like an undercover cop, reporter, or CIA agent (as long as the job is focused only on fighting evil, and the nation and laws being defended are just).
The importance of realizing that virtues are contextual can't be overstated . This means there can be no absolute commandments like "do not kill", "never lie", "honor your mother and father", etc. Obviously, none of these rules should be obeyed at all times. Each situation must be analyzed and a moral decision made based on reality using reason. This doesn't mean it's okay to pick and choose when to have integrity or honesty based on emotions or pragmatism. It means realizing that once principles and virtues are decided on, it's imperative to follow them at all times rationally, but not blindly.
Yes, and no. Honesty, as with all virtues, is an absolute contextually. In the last post, we saw that integrity as a virtue means to practice what you preach. However, in reality you are not obligated to practice what you preach if you don't have the freedom to do so. If standing up for your principles will cause you to end up in a gulag or hauled off to the nearest concentration camp, it ceases to become a virtue. If you don't believe the income tax is just, it doesn't mean you must avoid paying it and get sent to jail. With honesty, it's absolutely wrong to lie...in certain situations! Anytime a lie is used in an attempt to gain a value it's wrong and immoral, as we've just seen how it's irrational to use honesty to gain values. However, unlike ethics under Immanuel Kant, honesty is not an absolute in all cases, nor is it always a virtue. If kidnappers show up to your house and ask where the kids are, it's NOT a virtue to be honest! When dealing with criminals, one's honesty might be used to further evil and destroy values. In these situations, it's the criminal who is committing evil and at war with reality, not the victim. If this is the case, one should lie, and do it proudly. Being a good liar would actually become a virtue if someone is trying to take something by force or by fraud from you. This means there are even certain jobs that would morally permit lying, like an undercover cop, reporter, or CIA agent (as long as the job is focused only on fighting evil, and the nation and laws being defended are just).
The importance of realizing that virtues are contextual can't be overstated . This means there can be no absolute commandments like "do not kill", "never lie", "honor your mother and father", etc. Obviously, none of these rules should be obeyed at all times. Each situation must be analyzed and a moral decision made based on reality using reason. This doesn't mean it's okay to pick and choose when to have integrity or honesty based on emotions or pragmatism. It means realizing that once principles and virtues are decided on, it's imperative to follow them at all times rationally, but not blindly.
